Shooting and Explosions in Paris

Status
Not open for further replies.
gramps said:
and promoted by none less than the Church of Egland who refute creation and support Darwin's 'theory of evolution' ... no wonder people question the church's relevance today.
Click to expand...


Although we're getting away from the point of the thread a little...

I think its a sign of the church becoming more relevant. Accepting that things have changed in the last couple of thousand years and showing it does have a place in today's world. Being honest, I'm sure you would admit, most people think creationism is an allegory thats not really relevant to today's world. But by moving with the times, instead of remaining steadfastly unmoving the church finds its place today.
 
Cobra said:
But you have admit that Darwin's theory, and I used the word deliberately as there is no hard and fast proof of that either, although there is a lot of conjecture, and
circumstantial evidence to support it,
make's a lot more sense than God created man in his own image, then there was the rib thing, and to top it all that damned snake got involved.
And the rest is "History" as the saying goes.
Click to expand...

See I don't see it that way at all ... consider...

a) "God created them, male and female he created them" (The Bible) ... actually that's what I see, males and females ... everywhere.
b) This all happened by chance and then natural selection etc ... many scientists fail to understand how life came about in the first instance, how can you explain it happening twice ... 1st male then female and in an environment perfectly suited to them and enabling them to reproduce their kind.
Scientist Antony Flew was the foremost athiest of his day, but as soon as DNA was discovered and analysed he revised his life-long beliefs and wrote a book entitled, "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind". His view was that the fact of DNA proved that life was impossible without the input of an intelligent designer.
 
boyfalldown said:
Although we're getting away from the point of the thread a little...

I think its a sign of the church becoming more relevant. Accepting that things have changed in the last couple of thousand years and showing it does have a place in today's world. Being honest, I'm sure you would admit, most people think creationism is an allegory thats not really relevant to today's world. But by moving with the times, instead of remaining steadfastly unmoving the church finds its place today.
Click to expand...

The church certainly attempts to find its place with secular society but in misrepresenting God and His Word the bible it does not find its place with Him.
The church has watered down the bible's message in an endeavour to become relevant and popular in society but their hypocrisy has backfired on them with more and more people viewing church, God and the bible as being irrelevant to their life today.
 
Cobra said:
Bloody madness isn't it?

I certainly can't disagree with that!

But you have admit that Darwin's theory, and I used the word deliberately as there is no hard and fast proof of that either, although there is a lot of conjecture, and
circumstantial evidence to support it,
make's a lot more sense than God created man in his own image, then there was the rib thing, and to top it all that damned snake got involved.
And the rest is "History" as the saying goes.
Click to expand...

AvwcvKr.gif


Evolution is an established fact and the basis of the whole of biology. There should be no need for debate on this subject, unless the person you are debating with is a very religious person who will not accept evolution no matter what the evidence. Just look at the fossil record, how can people seriously think that the order of every single fossil in rock strata as explained by evolutions is down to blind luck?
 
gramps said:
The church certainly attempts to find its place with secular society but in misrepresenting God and His Word the bible it does not find its place with Him.
The church has watered down the bible's message in an endeavour to become relevant and popular in society but their hypocrisy has backfired on them with more and more people viewing church, God and the bible as being irrelevant to their life today.
Click to expand...

It's called education.
 
Rapscallion said:
AvwcvKr.gif


Evolution is an established fact and the basis of the whole of biology. There should be no need for debate on this subject, unless the person you are debating with is a very religious person who will not accept evolution no matter what the evidence. Just look at the fossil record, how can people seriously think that the order of every single fossil in rock strata as explained by evolutions is down to blind luck?
Click to expand...

But can anyone PROVE there is not a God?
 
gramps said:
The church certainly attempts to find its place with secular society but in misrepresenting God and His Word the bible it does not find its place with Him.
The church has watered down the bible's message in an endeavour to become relevant and popular in society but their hypocrisy has backfired on them with more and more people viewing church, God and the bible as being irrelevant to their life today.
Click to expand...

Sadly, that puts us miles apart on that issue. The last thing I want is to fight with you over it so I'll leave it there. Maybe I'll convert to Islam. Atleast the Quran encourages science & learning. (The converting bit is a joke BTW)
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
The church certainly attempts to find its place with secular society but in misrepresenting God and His Word the bible it does not find its place with Him.
The church has watered down the bible's message in an endeavour to become relevant and popular in society but their hypocrisy has backfired on them with more and more people viewing church, God and the bible as being irrelevant to their life today.
Click to expand...

The church has had to amend its whole foundation as people became learned. Adam and eve, nope; Noah and the flood, nope.....
 
gramps said:
Don't know how you come to that conclusion, it has never been God's message that Christians should obey the laws of the old testament ...
Click to expand...

so when according to matthew (or according to god by your interpretation as "they were gods words not matthews") jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" he didnt mean that his followees should adhere to the laws of the prophets (ie the old testament) ? .. despite going on to say that "he who ignores them will be the least in the kingdom of heaven whilst he that follows them shall be the greatest "

gramps said:
a) What about them?
Click to expand...

The ten lost tribes were taken by the assyrians in about 725 BCE and spread out accross the world , so if the 'peoples of isreal' were gods chosen people he did not focus exclusivly on the jews

gramps said:
b)Did you read the genealogy in Matthew and Luke? It proves the lineage from Jesus' parents back to Adam, the first created being ... the Jews were looking for the promised Messiah and they could check a valid claim (there were many) from the lineage amongst other things. For the Jews the record of family lineage was a vitally important matter and kept up to date until Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and all records were lost, hence no Jew today can trace his/her lineage back past that time.
As. with all things related to the bible record, great care was made to ensure that facts were correctly recorded and documented by the official Scribes, who were responsible for recording matters accurately
Click to expand...

If all the records were lost when the romans destroyed jerulsalem how do we know that the geneology in matthew and luke is accurate ? Also if Adam was the first created being everyone has a lineage back to him.
 
Rapscallion said:
Evolution is an established fact and the basis of the whole of biology. There should be no need for debate on this subject, unless the person you are debating with is a very religious person who will not accept evolution no matter what the evidence. Just look at the fossil record, how can people seriously think that the order of every single fossil in rock strata as explained by evolutions is down to blind luck?
Click to expand...

Just another persons view ... scientists themselves can't agree on evolution but it is not an "established fact", it is just blindly promoted as such.
You may not believe in God, that's your prerogative, but evolution cannot be proven ... like religious belief it is a matter of faith.
 
gramps said:
actually that's what I see, males and females ... everywhere.
Click to expand...
Just remove a rib and I'll provide you with a mate?
gramps said:
many scientists fail to understand how life came about in the first instance,
Click to expand...
That's been proven and has been re-created in a lab, it was ( Maybe) a pure fluke that the conditions were right, the correct mix of gases and elements were there, nearly 4 billion years ago.

Ok, maybe it wasn't a pure fluke, maybe some advanced civilisation, gave the process a poke just as we may plant a seed or genetically modify it to produce another ( sub) species.
Maybe their own "amusement" just like a child growing cress on a wet towel to "see what happens"

Rapscallion said:
Evolution is an established fact and the basis of the whole of biology.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for the missing link to appear till I fully subscribe to the theory,
We have found just about every link so far, save the one that matters.

I'm inclined to agree with my assumptions above, that the human race was given a little nudge in the right direct.
Maybe there was a little in-vitro help from an advanced civilisation ? ;)
 
cambsno said:
But can anyone PROVE there is not a God?
Click to expand...

How could that be done?
It is not on me to prove there isn't a god, (or a Flying Spaghetti Monster or an Invisible Pink Unicorn or a Ganesha or a ..........) - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." And there is no such proof. Indeed the whole Church / belief system is a trickery in that it convinces you not to look for evidence or proof, you need to believe, and if you don't believe enough you aren't worthy of redemption.
 
gramps said:
Just another persons view ... scientists themselves can't agree on evolution but it is not an "established fact", it is just blindly promoted as such.
You may not believe in God, that's your prerogative, but evolution cannot be proven ... like religious belief it is a matter of faith.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically, is there any evidence that can be shown to you that will convince you of the reality of evolution?
 
cambsno said:
But can anyone PROVE there is not a God?
Click to expand...
No more than you could prove that there is one.

God is, by its definition, beyond proof or evidence, which is why it is not science.
 
Rapscallion said:
The church has had to amend its whole foundation as people became learned. Adam and eve, nope; Noah and the flood, nope.....
Click to expand...
If what you say is true, and I don't believe it is, they would be better off setting up as some sort of social services, at least that would have some purpose.
Why represent something in which you do not believe? If God's Word means so little that you select for yourself what parts you want to believe, if any of it, why bother?
It actually fulfils prophecy:-

2 Timothy 4:3-5 (Living Bible)
"For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine and accurate instruction [that challenges them with God’s truth]; but wanting to have their ears tickled [with something pleasing], they will accumulate for themselves [many] teachers [one after another, chosen] to satisfy their own desires and to support the errors they hold, and will turn their ears away from the truth and will wander off into myths and man-made fictions [and will accept the unacceptable]. But as for you, be clear-headed in every situation [stay calm and cool and steady], endure every hardship [without flinching], do the work of an evangelist, fulfill [the duties of] your ministry."
 
Llamaman said:
What missing link? Do you mean proto-hominids, of which science has documented numerous times?
Click to expand...
Transitional ape/hominins, or proto-hominins. These creatures lived just after the divergence from our common hominid ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos,
Try again ;)
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
That's been proven and has been re-created in a lab, it was ( Maybe) a pure fluke that the conditions were right, the correct mix of gases and elements were there, nearly 4 billion years ago.
Click to expand...

A fluke to produce male and female with the ability not only for life to survive but also to reproduce ... do you know what the odds would be for just one sex being produced by a fluke?
 
gramps said:
a) "God created them, male and female he created them" (The Bible) ... actually that's what I see, males and females ... everywhere.
b) This all happened by chance and then natural selection etc ... many scientists fail to understand how life came about in the first instance, how can you explain it happening twice ... 1st male then female and in an environment perfectly suited to them and enabling them to reproduce their kind.
Click to expand...
What about the vast majority of life which has asexual reproduction? Is that work of satan?
Or is it more likely that sexual reproduction evolved?

gramps said:
Scientist Antony Flew was the foremost athiest of his day, but as soon as DNA was discovered and analysed he revised his life-long beliefs and wrote a book entitled, "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind". His view was that the fact of DNA proved that life was impossible without the input of an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...
His view is not shared by the scientific community. In fact, since ID is not testable, it is not science, so Flew was abandoning science to embrace an alternative, creationist explanation for life.
 
gramps said:
Just another persons view ... scientists themselves can't agree on evolution but it is not an "established fact", it is just blindly promoted as such.
You may not believe in God, that's your prerogative, but evolution cannot be proven ... like religious belief it is a matter of faith.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I think scientists do universally agree with evolution being fact.
 
Cobra said:
Just remove a rib and I'll provide you with a mate?

That's been proven and has been re-created in a lab, it was ( Maybe) a pure fluke that the conditions were right, the correct mix of gases and elements were there, nearly 4 billion years ago.

Ok, maybe it wasn't a pure fluke, maybe some advanced civilisation, gave the process a poke just as we may plant a seed or genetically modify it to produce another ( sub) species.
Maybe their own "amusement" just like a child growing cress on a wet towel to "see what happens"


I'm still waiting for the missing link to appear till I fully subscribe to the theory,
We have found just about every link so far, save the one that matters.

I'm inclined to agree with my assumptions above, that the human race was given a little nudge in the right direct.
Maybe there was a little in-vitro help from an advanced civilisation ? ;)
Click to expand...
The missing link is a fallacy. Read up on it.
And is the combined evidence across the fields such as "geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics," not convince you. They all combine to agree with one of the cleverest scientific insights, which was created before all the supporting evidence was discovered. It would be miraculous if the all the many thousand of pieces of evidence (probably millions) supported an incorrect theory, but that is what people choose to believe?
 
gramps said:
A fluke to produce male and female with the ability not only for life to survive but also to reproduce ... do you know what the odds would be for just one sex being produced by a fluke?
Click to expand...
Ah, the 'blind watchmaker' argument. Already comprehensively written about and refuted in scientific literature. Try the book of the same title by Richard Dawkins as an introduction.
 
gramps said:
If what you say is true, and I don't believe it is, they would be better off setting up as some sort of social services, at least that would have some purpose.
Why represent something in which you do not believe? If God's Word means so little that you select for yourself what parts you want to believe, if any of it, why bother?
It actually fulfils prophecy:-

2 Timothy 4:3-5 (Living Bible)
"For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine and accurate instruction [that challenges them with God’s truth]; but wanting to have their ears tickled [with something pleasing], they will accumulate for themselves [many] teachers [one after another, chosen] to satisfy their own desires and to support the errors they hold, and will turn their ears away from the truth and will wander off into myths and man-made fictions [and will accept the unacceptable]. But as for you, be clear-headed in every situation [stay calm and cool and steady], endure every hardship [without flinching], do the work of an evangelist, fulfill [the duties of] your ministry."
Click to expand...

Which could also be translated as "the time will come when humans stop requiring fairy stories as a crutch, and begin to face the real truth, that every thing man has ever done, both good and bad, has been bought about by his/her own action or inaction."

Tim Minchin has a point:

QUOTE:
And if anyone can show me one example in the entire history of the world of a single spiritual or religious person who has been able to show either empirically or logically the existence of a higher power with any consciousness or interest in the human race or ability to punish or reward humans for there moral choices or that there is any reason - other than fear - to believe in any version of an afterlife.....

I will give you my piano
One of my legs
And my wife
:UNQUOTE
 
gramps said:
do you know what the odds would be for just one sex being produced by a fluke?
Click to expand...
Fish have the ability to change sex if one or the other sex is lacking in an environment, not only in the reefs but also in a tank or garden pond.
Temperature can determine the sex of some Lizards pre-hatching.
So gender is not set hard and fast.
So, when we climbed out of the primeval Oooze that would have already been predetermined.
 
Rapscallion said:
Hypothetically, is there any evidence that can be shown to you that will convince you of the reality of evolution?
Click to expand...
My faith is absolute but it is not blind faith, it comes from years of considered study of the bible, of life, of prophecy etc and it would be very hard to shake it.
No matter how far you go back with the theory of evolution you have to start with something being there, you cannot get away from that fact ... when I look around at the creation I can see (as eventually did Antony Flew) that the evidence for an intelligent designer is overwhelming.
As long as I see that evidence of an intelligent designer you will never convince me that life evolved ... man has even copied elements of design from the creation.
The bible says God created each of the animals, birds, sea creatures etc, "according to their kind" ... that is what I see.
The bible says God created man "according to His image" ... when I look at the difference (not DNA but conscience etc) that is what I see, man is so very different to the animals in so many important ways.
 
Rapscallion said:
The missing link is a fallacy. Read up on it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are saying here?
Evolution is just that one thing leads to another, are you saying that we didn't evolve from apes?
 
gramps said:
A fluke to produce male and female with the ability not only for life to survive but also to reproduce ... do you know what the odds would be for just one sex being produced by a fluke?
Click to expand...

This really is a strange thing to say. When life emerged all those billions of years ago, there was no male and female.
 
Llamaman said:
Ah, the 'blind watchmaker' argument. Already comprehensively written about and refuted in scientific literature. Try the book of the same title by Richard Dawkins as an introduction.
Click to expand...
Read what Antony Flew wrote about Richard Dawkins' book.
 
Rapscallion said:
The missing link is a fallacy. Read up on it.
And is the combined evidence across the fields such as "geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics," not convince you. They all combine to agree with one of the cleverest scientific insights, which was created before all the supporting evidence was discovered. It would be miraculous if the all the many thousand of pieces of evidence (probably millions) supported an incorrect theory, but that is what people choose to believe?
Click to expand...
Agree with all of that except the last word. Science is not a belief system, because it is self-critical and adaptable and based around logic and evidence, not supernatural dogma.

In practise, of course, science is susceptible to the same social factors as any human activity, but that's a whole different subject worthy of it's own thread ( look up 'Sociology of Scientific Knowledge' - SSK is a fascinating subject and was one of my favourite topics at University).
 
Llamaman said:
Ah, the 'blind watchmaker' argument. Already comprehensively written about and refuted in scientific literature. Try the book of the same title by Richard Dawkins as an introduction.
Click to expand...

gramps said:
Read what Antony Flew wrote about Richard Dawkins' book.
Click to expand...

My dad could beat up your dad......... :rolleyes:
 
KitsuneAndy said:
I'm sorry, but I think scientists do universally agree with evolution being fact.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but they most certainly don't, not that that matters to me but evolution is most definitely not universally agreed on by all scientists.
 
gramps said:
I'm sorry but they most certainly don't, not that that matters to me but evolution is most definitely not universally agreed on by all scientists.
Click to expand...

There might be one or two who put their beliefs before facts, but there is consensus in the scientific world and plenty of evidence to back it up. But no evidence of a higher being of any kind.
 
Cobra said:
I'm not sure what you are saying here?
Evolution is just that one thing leads to another, are you saying that we didn't evolve from apes?
Click to expand...

You've already said yourself that we didn't. Humans and apes share a common ancestor, that's different from evolving from them.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
I understood that humans and apes shared a common branch of the tree of life, not that we evolved from them.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, like all good arguments, the jury is still out on that one

gramps said:
By whom and how come two?
Click to expand...
I think the Llama covered that when he said
Llamaman said:
What about the vast majority of life which has asexual reproduction?
Or is it more likely that sexual reproduction evolved?
Click to expand...
Or as I said just to throw another theory into the discussion
Cobra said:
maybe some advanced civilisation, gave the process a poke just as we may plant a seed or genetically modify it to produce another ( sub) species.
Maybe for their own "amusement" just like a child growing cress on a wet towel to "see what happens" ;)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top